ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Application for interpretation (6,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Application for interpretation
Total judgments found: 45

1, 2, 3 | next >

  • Judgment 4292


    130th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The FAO has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4065.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;

    Considerations 6-8

    Extract:

    In its application for interpretation, the FAO states that while it notes that the five points of the decision in Judgment 4065 are expressed in clear terms, it became apparent from the exchanges of correspondence between the parties (referred to in the foregoing considerations) that they have differing views regarding what the decision requires them to do. This, it states, is because ďthere appears to be some ambiguity as to what actions are required as a consequence of Point 1 [of the Decision], having regard to Consideration 8 of the JudgmentĒ, on which it requests the Tribunalís guidance.
    The FAO is entitled to apply for the interpretation of consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 as it has done in this instance as, according to the Tribunalís case law, as stated, for example in Judgment 3984, consideration 10, although ordinarily an application for interpretation can concern only the decision contained in a judgment, it may additionally concern the grounds if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision. In this instance, point 2 of the decision in Judgment 4065 incorporated consideration 8 of Judgment 4065. The critical question is whether the application is receivable. As the case law further states, in the said consideration 10 of Judgment 3984, such an application is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed.
    The application for interpretation is irreceivable. Consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 is clear and unambiguous. [...] It is not within the Tribunalís purview to provide an advisory opinion or guidance concerning the steps that are to follow the discussion or what should happen if events unfold in a certain way. The Tribunal reiterates that both the FAO and the complainant must approach the implementation of its order in point 2 and the analysis contained in consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 in a rational, sensible and balanced way, and, as a paramount consideration, do so lawfully (see Judgment 3989, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 3989, 4065

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; application for interpretation; competence of tribunal;



  • Judgment 4235


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 4093.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunalís case law, an application for interpretation is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed (see, for example, Judgments 1306, consideration 2, 3014, consideration 3, 3271, consideration 4, and 3822, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306, 3014, 3271, 3822

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation;



  • Judgment 4187


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4052.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The application for interpretation is irreceivable. According to the Tribunalís established case law, ďan application for interpretation is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed (see, for example, Judgments 1306, under 2, 3014, under 3, or [...] 3271, under 4)Ē (see Judgment 3984, under 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306, 3014, 3271, 3984

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainantís request for clarification under (a) in consideration 3 [...] is an attempt to relitigate a question which was already decided in Judgment 4052 and which is therefore res judicata.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4052

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4179


    128th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 3879.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunalís case law, an application for the interpretation of any aspect of a judgment will not be receivable where the judgment is clear and unambiguous and the application is merely filed ďto obtain an opinion on a legal issue, to obtain a reply from the Tribunal to a question that it was not required to address in the context of the judgment to which the application relates, or to circumvent an internal procedure in which disputes regarding the execution of the judgment could be resolved in accordance with the adversarial principleĒ (see, for example, Judgment 3014, under 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3014

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Point 2 [of the decision] would not be ambiguous merely because the parties subjectively may not agree on its meaning or effect, as the complainant suggests. Objectively, point 2 of the decision in Judgment 3879 is clear and unambiguous. It means that, the Tribunal having set aside the complainantís 2011 PACE appraisal report and ordered its removal from his file, it is not to be taken into account as a valid PACE appraisal report affecting any decisions or actions concerning the complainant.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3879

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation;



  • Judgment 4092


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to order WHO to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Judgment 3871 and, in particular, to reinstate him with all legal consequences.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [I]f WHO considered that the decision in Judgment 3871 presented any uncertainty or ambiguity on this point, it ought to have filed with the Tribunal an application for interpretation of the judgment, but it did not do this.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation;



  • Judgment 4079


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; permanent appointment; termination of employment;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunalís case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can only concern the decision in a judgment and not the grounds therefor (see, for example, Judgment 3984, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; receivability of application;



  • Judgment 4078


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; fixed-term; termination of employment;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunalís case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can only concern the decision in a judgment and not the grounds therefor (see, for example, Judgment 3984, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). The application for interpretation is, on the face of the record, irreceivable as it does not put in issue the terms of the orders made in the decision in Judgment 3929.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3929, 3984

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; receivability of application;



  • Judgment 4077


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunalís order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; reinstatement;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunalís case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can only concern the decision in a judgment and not the grounds therefor (see, for example, Judgment 3984, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). The application for interpretation is, on the face of the record, irreceivable as it does not put in issue the terms of the orders made in the decision in Judgment 3928.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3928, 3984

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation;



  • Judgment 4076


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed and application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3927 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunalís case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can only concern the decision in a judgment and not the grounds therefor (see, for example, Judgment 3984, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). The application for interpretation is, on the face of the record, irreceivable as it does not put in issue the terms of the orders made in the decision in Judgment 3927.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3927, 3984

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; receivability of application;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; suspension of the execution of a judgment;



  • Judgment 3989


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The EPO has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 3972.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3972

    Keywords:

    application filed by the organisation; application for interpretation;



  • Judgment 3987


    126th Session, 2018
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3913.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3913

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; application for review; complaint dismissed;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    In her pleas in the application for interpretation and review, the complainant acknowledges that ordinarily an application for interpretation must concern an interpretation of the decision and not the Tribunalís reasons. Nothing is said in the pleas about the meaning of the decision requiring interpretation, nor does the complainant argue that this is one of those rare cases when the considerations can be considered as part of the interpretation of the decision. Accordingly nothing more need be said about the application for interpretation.

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation;



  • Judgment 3985


    126th Session, 2018
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants have filed an application for execution of Judgment 3883 and the ILO has filed an application for interpretation of that judgment.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3883

    Keywords:

    application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 3984


    126th Session, 2018
    African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The ACP Group has filed an application for review and interpretation of Judgment 3845.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunalís case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can concern only the decision contained in a judgment and not to the grounds therefor. It is, however, accepted that such an application may additionally concern the grounds if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision (see Judgments 2483, under 3, 3271, under 4, and 3564, under 1). [...]
    However, an application for interpretation is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed (see, for example, Judgments 1306, under 2, 3014, under 3, or the aforementioned Judgment 3271, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306, 2483, 3014, 3271, 3271, 3564

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3845

    Keywords:

    application filed by the organisation; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 3896


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 3785.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3785

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 3895


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3694.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3694

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    With respect to the remaining requested clarifications, b) to e) [...], the Tribunal finds that they are not requests for interpretation of the judgment, but are instead essentially requests for advice. Specifically, the complainant asks about the lawfulness of the new norms and if their applicability to his appeal adheres to the principles of international civil service law. These requests for advice are beyond the Tribunalís competence.

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; competence of tribunal;



  • Judgment 3822


    124th Session, 2017
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3507.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3507

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for interpretation; complaint allowed;



  • Judgment 3821


    124th Session, 2017
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3491.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3491

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 3820


    124th Session, 2017
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3490.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3490

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 3731


    123rd Session, 2017
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3235.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3235

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for interpretation; complaint allowed;



  • Judgment 3635


    122nd Session, 2016
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants have filed applications for execution of Judgment 3238.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that its judgments, which according to Article VI of its Statute are ďfinal and without appealĒ and which also carry res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, under 12, and 3152, under 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled. They may form the subject of an application for interpretation by the Tribunal only if a party considers that the decision is deficient or insufficiently clear (see, for example, Judgments 1887, under 8, and 3394, under 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887, 3003, 3152, 3394

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for interpretation;

1, 2, 3 | next >


 
Last updated: 28.10.2020 ^ top